l5rfandomcom-20200216-history
L5r talk:Imperial Court/Archive1
Imperial Court After some discussion, the contents of this page have been moved back to the Main Page, which unfortunately leaves this one serving no purpose once more. So I'd like to hear your suggestions for what to do here. My best idea so far is to put in a section of news for the wiki. My bigest concern is that I don't want it to turn into a message board (because that's what this Talk page is for). So please leave any suggestions or examlpes from other wikis of which you may know. Thank you. --WestonWyse 14:10, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC) :Well, after over a month of contemplation, I think I have a decent use for this page. Here's to hoping it serves its purpose. And once I start redirecting comments in my Talk page to here, it just might. --WestonWyse 04:16, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC) References OK, people seem to be adding things randomly to pages when they want to point people to their sources. If you haven't already, stop what you are doing right now and go read L5R:Cite your sources. It actually details how you are supposed to reference your sources. It may seem like homework, but 1) it is important to tell people where you are getting your information, because otherwise there is no way to check what you have written, and 2) you're editing an encyclopedia; you don't have a lot of room to complain about homework. What I'm seeing repeatedly: * Parenthetical citations are to be used for one or two paragraphs, not lengthy pages. End notes are to be used for lengthy pages, not one or two paragraphs. * Include page numbers! Otherwise, your refernces are useless. No one is going to go through an entire book page by page to find out where you found the year that Hantei 37th was coronated. Be specific. If you really want to direct someone to an entire book, add it in a "Additional Reading" section or something. Or, better yet, go add all the information in that book to the Wiki. I'm only half kidding. Two very simple things that, in the long run, will greatly help out keeping things in line. Just remember that the references are there so that your work can be checked. Everyone makes mistakes, including you. References that don't help people aren't worth adding at all. Just leave it off, and someone will eventually come back and fix it. --WestonWyse 03:32, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC) Disambig Just wanted to ask a question which has been bugging me for a while... On the main wikipedia some of the disambig pages are done better (in my mind), i.e. as Tamago (Disambiguation), rather than, Tamago (Matsu Nimuro) and Tamago (False Nimuro). Just wanted to say that i thought this would be a better way of doing them, but feel free to do with this as you wish... --Majushi 17:59, 21st Nov 05 :Example of what i thought looked good... Example --Majushi :Trouble is, to do it like that, one use definitely needs to be more common than any others. In the case of Tamago, that's just not the case. Yet. Maybe by the end of Lotus, but not right now (Right now, IMO, the argument would be to not have changed it in the first place, and keep using the False Nimuro as Tamago, but that would be simply incorrect in another year or so). Nor is it true for Kami or Thunder. Megumi really isn't widely used enough at all to decide which is more common. Agasha family could probably be changed at this point, but historically, the difference is important, and a lot of new players may not know that anymore. Yama is pretty much the only one I would say deserved that treatment. :Plus, even on Wikipedia, that's not always true. (And that's only looking at a few on the first page) Doing it this way for every single disambig page would just get confusing, as articles would be constantly pointing to the wrong pages. At least the way they are now, they point to a page that points users directly to the right page. 00:46, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC) ::Fair enough --Majushi :Keeping in mind your idea, I've made Template:DisambigNotice for automatic generation of (disambiguation) pages for those articles that actually could use this treatment. The first to be honored with this is Akasha (disambiguation). 17:08, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC) Metadata For those of you who are not programmers, the term "metadata" means, basically, "information about information". For this Wiki, the data would be information about the people, places, cultures, customs, history, and events of Rokugan and other areas within the World of L5R. Likewise, metadata would be real-world information about the games: game mecahnics, alternate settings, unofficial material, publication information, and the like. Until now, the L5R Wiki has been restricted to in-character information information within the game. But at this point, I think it is safe to open up discussion on the inclusion of certain types of metadata. Specifically, I would like to test this on source information. We could try including information about the RPG books and CCG sets (release date, price, number of pages/cards, ad copy, included information (for the RPG, mostly), etc.). The material could prove helpful to some, and it would take us a step closer to the set goal of "Everything". Please feel free to voice your opinions on whether or not you feel this is the right time to broaden the scope of this project. If the opinions seem to be positive, then later on I will post a few ideas I have for style and layout. For now, let's see if people would be willing to try this out. 22:48, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC) :Although i would very much like to see a section with card lists for the CCG or a section with RPG schools etc, i feel the "in character" things would become cluttered by the presence of technical data. Perhaps a seperate section for the CCG stuff and a seperate section for the RPG stuff, but still under the same roof as the "canon" story stuff? --Majushi ::Have a look at Jade Hand Just basic meta data. Feel free to remove or mess with if we're not ready to try it out. Dairu 20:21, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC) ::Yeah, I was definitely thinking of making separate entries. I'd probably request that a Meta: namespace be added; I've seen Angela do that to other WikiCities. Card lists are not a bad idea, either. I'm hesitant to put mechanics on here at the moment, though, because they are generally copyrighted, to at least some extent. As much as I like what you put, I hope you understand if I take it out for now (well, it'll still be in the History...). I'm a little busy this weekend (I probably should have waited to bring this up until next week, honestly...), but I will go ahead and post a bit of what I had in mind when I get the chance. 13:56, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC) ::: not a problem, I was just messing around, Jade Hand seemed to be a good enough test subject. Dairu 16:17, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC) ::::I'm not complaining in the least. Even without the mechanics, it looks like a really good (and fairly important) article. I should have a little time this evening to get on and punch in what I've been thinking about. I'll let you all know when that happens. For now, in class & away from my books. 15:40, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC) ---- Getting back to this topic, what I did earlier to the new pages for the Shadow Dragon and Egg of P'an Ku are the sort of thing of which I was thinking. Information about the cards/books, and not only stats and mechanics. Separate pages, interlinked with each other. One Meta: page could easily hold meta information about both games (three, counting Clan Wars). For now, I am going to roughly categorize them into Category:CCG Meta and Category:RPG Meta, but that might change later. Thanks for getting me back on topic, Thanthos. And welcome onboard. 17:48, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC) : Speaking of new ground, are we going to establish a standard of linking the main pages to their meta pages or are they going to remain unlinked? I ask because I found no such precedent and was wondering how I should go about doing it. --Thanthos 06:37, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::What you did on Enlightenment looks good, but you might want to check with the head honcho... keep up the good work, and remember to keep the meta and canon information apart, i.e. Duel and Duel/Meta... -- Majushi ::That's because there is no precedent. The ones I made yesterday behind you were the first to be made. Personally, I think the links would fit well into the usual "See Also" section. I just don't see much point to adding a whole new heading just for Meta links. ::As for the links, I personally think just linking to the meta page would be fine (eg, Shadow Dragon/Meta), but I cna see where newcomers would find that confusing or uninformative. My only issue with linking to CCG Information is that some articles will end up with information on the CCG and RPG. Should it then be the job of whoever added the RPG data to go back and change the links, or do we need to find a different label? 14:26, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC) :::personally i feel that Shadow Dragon/Meta will be a better link format than CCG Information, as the Meta page will very likely have both RPG and CCG information on it... --Majushi And Copyrights Just wondering; noticing that you deleted the meta Shiba Bushi and Bland pages. Not arguing, just tell me what i can and can't add... So; Game Mechanics no, personality characteristics yes? --Majushi :*L* The funny thing is, in that I was about to post this anyway. You work quickly. :OK, to clarify, mechanics from books in-print are out-of-bounds. Information from books in print is acceptable, but it has to be in your own words. With mechanics, unfortunately, that's nigh impossible to do, really. Mechanics on books out of print are OK, it seems. But frankly, I'd like us to be careful with anything that is lifted directly from the books, as it is still under copyright, whether or not people from AEG have said they are OK to post. :The difference being that everything entered into this Wiki is released, of necessity, under the GFDL. That is not the case for information on the AEG Forum. And that being the case, we still do not have permission to post anything here. Posting copyrighted information this way could very easily get us in trouble not only with AEG, but also with WikiCities, as it is a violation of their rules. :Fair use material is still acceptable, as far as I can tell, but an entire article with nothing but information lifted straight from a book is simply too much. Instead of copying in the mechanics (and especially instead of only copying in the mechanics), it would probably be better to simply write a few sentences about what the advantage/school/skill/whatever does, its pros and cons, player reaction, benefits that might not be immediately apparent, good combos with other advantages... that sort of thing. : 18:34, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::Ok, fair enough... Just to clarify; is Shiba Mirabu/Meta also a no no? or does that not constitute mechanics? --Majushi :::Honestly, I'm not sure. I know information can't be copyrighted -- like names in a phone book -- but I'm not sure about fictional information. For now, I'm inclined to say that it is OK, but if I am ever told differently, the situation will change immediately. 21:35, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC) Infoboxes I've been thinking a lot lately about organization here. Many of the articles would be better filed in different categories, mostly because the categories they should be in did not exist when the articles were first created. The same applies for categories, as well. But what I was thinking about is what categories could be added to better group the articles? I've come up with a couple of ideas, the first of which I just took step 1 in implementing. The new Template:Vassal family infobox I see as a good way to collect the different vassal families (which seems to be something of a buzzword here, lately). This is my solution to a problem I see coming once the table on the Vassal family article gets too long and unwieldy to be of much use; this will allow us to use the new Category:Vassal families category to collect the articles in one place and will allow us to keep the page clean at the same time. It does, however, bring up a few more issues: * Do we do the same thing for Great Clan, minor clan, and ronin families? * Do we move all of these categories around so that all the related ones are now in the new Category:Families? * What else do we want to reorganize? For the first two items, I'm thinking yes. I believe that it will both give another path to find these articles through the category structures and it will clean up the clutter that is starting to form within Category:Rokugan, but I'll be the first to admit that not all of my ideas are good ones. Is this a good idea, or will it only confuse things more? I say we put it to a vote: Create family categories Should we create new categories, such as Category:Great Clan families, to collect family articles and categories (Category:Crab Clan Families, etc.)? This would not remove, for instance, the Great Clan families categories from their clans, but add them to the new category. *'Yes' 20:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC) Create family infoboxes Should we create new infoboxes to quickly display important data about these families? *'Yes' for Great Clan, minor clan, and vassal families. No for Imperial and ronin families. The latter two don't really have any information that would go well in a box. 20:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC) ::If we decide to add daimyo to the boxes, change that to Yes. *What data will go in these boxes? I.e. if daimyo of Kitsu is Kitsu Katsuko will she be listed in the infobox? Because there is a list of daimyo at the bottom of the family pages... Irrespective of answer my vote is still Yes --Majushi ::Yeah, it would be a little repititous, especially on short articles. but we already have the same for people like Isawa Tsuke, who have their titles in their infobox at top and succession box at bottom. Other informaion to include Vassal families have patron and clan boxes. Clan families would obviously only have Clan boxes. Is there anything else that should be in these boxes? Add suggestions below. *''Daimyo'' - I actually came up with this wile typing the previous. Would require updating, but so do the pages, anyway. :Add 20:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :Add Majushi *''Founder'' - silly, i know, but i thought it should be mentioned at least... :NoAdd Majushi :Add Actually, I kind of like that one. 15:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC) *''Founding Year''' - The date of when they were founded. I like this one... I like dates... :Add Majushi : Add 15:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Other infoboxes/categories to consider Is there anything else for which you think an infobox would be a good addition or that you think a new category structure would better present? Add suggestions below. * Clans I keep coming up with new ideas now. Each clan could have a box showing their current champion and families. Add 20:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC) Final results (for now) Please consider voting closed on the above. I will begin to implement the changes immediately. Feel free to continue to suggest new infoboxes to create, however. 14:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC) Toturi dates See Talk:Toturi I for details... --Majushi 13:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)